[In government] the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other–that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. ~ James Madison, The Federalist, No. 51, February 6, 1788.A while back President Obama announced an executive order with dramatic implications for up to five million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States. He is taking this step, by many accounts, against the will of the American people as expressed in public opinion polls and through the results of the most recent election, which placed control of the U.S. Congress firmly in the hands of the Republican Party, where the debate over immigration policy is still unsettled.The president himself realizes that unilateral action on immigration is politically unpopular, since he chose to delay action until after the election so the issue couldn’t be used against Democratic candidates. It didn’t seem to matter to the voters, however, who were apparently astute enough to recognize the delay as a purely political decision, and they sent a message that they want a Congress not beholden to the president to speak for them on the issue.Despite the electoral outcome, the President seems determined to move forward with his immigration plan, setting up a battle between him and the Congress before the newly elected and reelected legislators have a chance to take their seats in January.Not coincidentally, a recent Pew Research poll shows that distrust in the federal government remains near historic highs.There is no great secret to the American public’s lack of trust. The confidence we have in government is directly linked to the adherence of our public officials to its strictures. Whether it’s checks and balances, separation of powers, enumerated powers, negative liberties, or even self-governance, the overriding concept that is supposed to engender trust in our system of government is restraint. In fact, to govern is “to hold in check” or “control”.The people do not trust the government because they do not perceive the control they exercise over their government through the electoral process has any effect. If the branch of government that most closely reflects the views and wishes of the electorate can be bypassed at the whim of the others, then there is no basis for trust.The counter-argument we hear constantly from those who endorse unilateral action by the executive branch is that our leaders have no choice but to act. These enlightened souls are forced to ignore the constitutional constraints placed on them because of the inaction of those countervailing institutions which exist precisely for the purpose of expressing most directly the will of the people, and offsetting the possibility of sweeping decisions with widespread implications being made by a cadre of elites, or an elite. They call it gridlock, but it is a function of design, not whim.As recent events have revealed, however, the people are perceived by many as uninformed or malleable, and therefore either warranting little or no consideration, or are ripe for exploitation to achieve the desired results. This is dangerous thinking, because it presumes wisdom and foresight are possessed by only a select few, and they must exercise their giftedness regardless of the people’s demands because they are more advanced than the masses.We recently concluded an election with historic implications. Think on this; when all the votes are counted, the GOP could have the largest majority in the House since 1930. The GOP needed six seats to claim a majority in the U.S. Senate; they won eight and are on the verge of winning a ninth seat in the Louisiana runoff election on December 6th. Four gubernatorial seats previously held by Democrats were won by Republicans while only one Republican seat flipped to the Democrats, leaving the GOP with control of 31 governorships. Republicans will control 68 of the 98 state legislative chambers nationwide, the most since 1920, full legislative control in 30 states compared to only 11 for the Democrats, and full control of both the state legislative and executive branches in 24 states compared to only six for the Democrats. Rarely in our nation’s history has the will of the people been expressed so clearly and forcefully.Despite that fact, today will be a watershed moment in the erosion of trust between a government and its people.Some would argue persuasively that the people must bear their share of responsibility for this predicament. A scan of “man on the street” videos, one of which recently went viral and, unfortunately, involves my alma mater, suggests that Americans are ignorant of the structure and current composition of their government. Other studies have shown that civic ignorance is distressingly common. Retired U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice David H. Souter has publicly expressed alarm at how little the people know about their government:Less than a third of adult Americans in the United States understand that the basic constitutional structure of American government is one of power divided into three branches that they can name…Two-thirds of the country doesn’t have a clue about that.Souter declared, “I don’t believe that constitutional government as we know it in the United States can ultimately survive in that atmosphere of pervasive civic ignorance and majority dissociation from the basic process of American government.” In that respect, he is aligned with James Madison who, in a letter to an associate in 1822, wrote:A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.Some would say that civic ignorance is just one failure to which the public must own up when it comes to the erosion of trust in government. Limited participation in the electoral process, leaving it largely to the activists and hyper-partisans on both sides of the aisle, and our inability or unwillingness to solve problems at the community level, or to govern our own behaviors, thereby inviting intervention by the state, have also been cited as an abdication of the obligations envisioned for us by our founders.As much as we expect restraint and accountability from our elected officials, we are accountable for civic awareness, active participation in the political process, and local governance, and we are expected to show restraint in our behavior, what the founders called virtue, and all of these are essential to responsible citizenship.We don’t trust our government, and with good reason because they are acting in their own interests, but is it fair to ask ourselves whether or not we have we given them reason to trust us?Are we now in the 11th hour, living in the last days before the Huxleyan vision of a “Brave New World” takes hold? Are we a government of the few, by the few and for the few? It could be argued that we are already, in effect, an oligarchy, and the oligarchs are challenging us, essentially asking, “What are you going to do about it?”Ron Miller of Lynchburg, Virginia is an associate dean and assistant professor of government at Liberty University, a conservative commentator and author of the book, SELLOUT: Musings from Uncle Tom's Porch. The nine-year plus veteran of the U.S. Air Force and married father of three writes columns for several online sites and print publications, and his own website, RonOnTheRight.com. Join him on Facebook, Google+ and Twitter. Title and affiliation are provided for identification purposes only. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, Liberty University.See More

As we were preparing the house for our Thanksgiving guests yesterday, I finally put away the walker and wheelchair I’ve had since I came home from the rehabilitation center on August 13th. It was a reminder of how far I’ve come, and how thankful I am to be on the road to recovery. But I’m not just thankful for the healing; I’m also thankful for the injury itself. Let me explain.For those who may not know, I suffered a serious injury the morning of July 26th as I was getting up from my desk at home to head to work. I tripped over a box I’d mistakenly left in the middle of the floor and, in the process of avoiding a fall on my right shoulder, which was still healing from arthroscopic surgery done two weeks prior, I landed hard on my knees. I grabbed the back of a chair to steady myself, but since it has wheels, it flipped out from under my grasp, and I bent over backwards while still on my knees, rupturing both of my quadriceps tendons.I have never experienced such pain in all my life, and I was unable to stand on or lift my legs. A bilateral simultaneous rupture of the quadriceps tendon is an extremely rare injury which required major surgery the next day to repair, and I was in leg immobilizing braces for six weeks, unable to bend my legs. With both legs and my right shoulder unusable, I was as close to helpless as I’ve ever been.This was my fifth surgery in the two years we’ve lived in Lynchburg. My medical dossier includes arthroscopic surgery on both knees as well as my right shoulder, the repair of a ruptured triceps tendon in my left arm, the aforementioned bilateral quadriceps tendon repair, and a week’s stay in Lynchburg General Hospital because of excessive blood loss due to internal bleeding, most likely caused by the overuse of over the counter pain medication after my arm surgery.I spent three days in the hospital as a result of my quadriceps tendon rupture and subsequent surgery, followed by two weeks in a rehabilitation center since I was too incapacitated for home care. I then spent about seven weeks at home on disability leave, returning to work on October 7th, ten weeks after my fall.Because of my recent medical history, I was initially frustrated with my circumstances, embarrassed by my helplessness, and fearful for my job. I was a burden to my family at a critical time, since my wife was starting her new job as an assistant professor at Liberty University, my son was beginning his freshman year at Liberty, and my daughter was also preparing for her sophomore year at the university.At one point, the anxiety was almost unbearable; I was in a situation totally outside of my control. I lay there in the rehabilitation center one afternoon and was struck with the realization that I couldn’t go anywhere I wanted to go or do anything I wanted to do. I was completely at the mercy of others, and as I thought about my plight, the tears started to come. It was in that state of total despair that God began to work on my heart.Next to me in the rehabilitation was my roommate. I didn’t know much about him, but I knew his first name, that he was recovering from his second stroke, and he was at least 10 years younger than me. He was unable to speak, he couldn’t control his body, and he needed assistance with practically everything. As I looked around me, I saw others without limbs, and still others who were recovering from debilitating diseases and would never be the same again.I was ashamed of my moment of self-pity, because I knew my circumstances were temporary and that one day I would be fully recovered from my injuries and the surgery. My heart was softened by the pain of the others around me, and my own suffering became secondary.God wasn’t done with me yet.After returning home, I was lying in bed and having a conversation with God about the road ahead. I allowed my anxiety about my job to get the better of me, and I tried to return to work immediately after I was released from the rehabilitation center. I was still in the braces and needed a wheelchair to navigate, however, and I was a major inconvenience for others around me. Besides, my doctor hadn’t given me permission to return to work, a directive I had chosen to ignore. My boss and the human resources folks gently but firmly directed me to go home and follow the doctor’s orders, and they instructed me to file for disability leave. I knew that going home on disability would have a financial impact as well as a professional one, and it was just another worry on top of the others.So as I lay there in the quiet of the guest bedroom, I said to God, “Okay, I surrender. There’s too much here for me, and you say to cast all my cares upon you. So I’m going to trust you completely. I know you love me and you mean only the best for me, so I’m not going to worry about anything anymore. It’s all yours.”At that moment, I felt a peace and contentment unlike any I’d known before. I had turned a corner in my relationship with the Lord, and if I stayed true to my promise to trust him without reservation, I knew that this peace I was feeling could stay with me for the rest of my life. In a recent post on Facebook, I shared how that trust has come to manifest itself in my life:I believe that the God who created the universe can wave His hand over me and instantly heal my legs and make them as good as new. I also believe, however, that if He chooses not to do so, then He has His reasons, and His reasons can only be good and loving, because He is good and He is love. Therefore, I am at peace, even though “in this world you will have trouble.”As I reflect on my past, God has been whittling away at my pride for about 11 years now. Every major professional or personal setback over that period of time has been designed to bring me to the point of total surrender to Him. I thought I was there, but it took a debilitating injury like the one I experienced this summer to make me realize I hadn’t arrived yet. He had to bring me to a place where I couldn’t do anything for myself for me to realize that I can do nothing without Him, and all things with Him.And such a great gift is a cause for thanksgiving. That is how I can honestly give Him thanks for my injuries. Would I rather be pain-free and strong again? Of course. But would I trade the peace I have right now for an end to my trials? No, I would not.Ephesians 5:20 says we should be “always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The words “always” and “everything” are not exclusive, so we are commanded to give thanks all the time for everything. That is impossible to do unless your faith and trust in God are absolute. When you can bless the Lord whether in the midst of prosperity or pain, you will have discovered the “the peace of God, which passes all understanding” (Philippians 4:7).And you will give thanks. I hope your Thanksgiving weekend is blessed.Ron Miller of Lynchburg, Virginia is an associate dean and assistant professor of government at Liberty University, a conservative commentator and author of the book, SELLOUT: Musings from Uncle Tom's Porch. The nine-year plus veteran of the U.S. Air Force and married father of three writes columns for several online sites and print publications, and his own website, RonOnTheRight.com. Join him on Facebook, Google+ and Twitter. Title and affiliation are provided for identification purposes only. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, Liberty University. See More

Note: This article is based on a lecture I gave on Thursday, August 8, 2013, to the Public Policy Lawyering class (LAW 760) at the Liberty University School of Law.Ken Blackwell, a prominent practitioner and opinion-shaper in politics and policy, visiting professor of law at Liberty University, and one of the few men I’ve met who, in my opinion, is deserving of the label “statesman”, speaks of politics as the art of “controlling the narrative”.One of the most persistent, compelling and controversial narratives of modern American politics, specifically among the liberal orthodoxy, is that, despite the gains of the civil rights era, America is still an inherently racist nation.The summer of 2013 has been particularly fruitful to those who subscribe to that narrative. Consider these recent events:Fisher vs. University of Texas – This Supreme Court decision ruled that colleges and universities, in pursuing the legitimate aim of diversity, must demonstrate that the consideration of race is necessary to the achievement of that goal. Some observers view the “strict scrutiny” requirement for the use of race in achieving diversity as a hindrance to affirmative action in college admissions.Shelby County v. Holder – This Supreme Court decision declared unconstitutional Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act. This section established a coverage formula for determining which voting jurisdictions required “preclearance” from the federal government before enacting changes to voting laws and practices. The formula was declared unconstitutional because it was based on data over 40 years old, and was therefore not reflective of current needs. While the Court left open the possibility of legislative remedy through a modernized formula, opponents of the decision viewed it as essentially gutting the Voting Rights Act, one of the signature pieces of legislation from the civil rights era.State of Florida v. George Zimmerman –The “not guilty” verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman, who fatally shot 17-year old Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012 in an altercation in Zimmerman’s neighborhood, has sparked a national debate on race relations and the tribulations of young black men unlike any witnessed in recent memory. Both sides, in my opinion, have become so entrenched in their points of view that neither is looking at the situation with any degree of nuance or objectivity, so the less said about it here, the better.The N-word – This summer saw two public figures, celebrity chef Paula Deen and Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver Riley Cooper, pilloried for their use of the word “nigger,” in Ms. Deen’s case some time in the distant past and, in the case of Mr. Cooper, a couple of months ago at a Kenny Chesney concert, where he was drunk and belligerent toward a black security guard.The Butler - The upcoming film, The Butler, inspired by the true story of a black butler who served eight presidents in the White House, is being promoted in advance of its release on August 16th, and the cast and director, Lee Daniels, are not missing the opportunity to tie the film, with its evocative portrayal of the civil rights era, to current events related to race relations.Daniels, in a recent interview, made a pointed reference regarding the movie’s depiction of Lyndon Johnson announcing the Voting Rights Act, and what he perceives as the potential impact of the recent Supreme Court decision:It was divine order, Daniels said, that let the film, which features President Lyndon B. Johnson’s announcement of the Voting Rights Act, to be released just weeks after the Supreme Court weakened some of the protections provided by the landmark law. “We had a great time shooting the scene with Lyndon Johnson,” Daniels said in an interview with POLITICO. “He did something incredible for the African-American — for us — with the Voting Rights bill. And then they took it away. My grandmother, if she wants to go in and she ain’t got her ID… she’s not going to vote. That’s just where it is right now.”Note the pride in the director’s voice as he recounts the reaction of former president George H.W. Bush and his wife, Barbara, to a private screening of the film:“It was so powerful because they hung their heads — both of them hung their heads, he said. “And that was a gift for me knowing that they felt it. That they felt that they knew…that was a gift for me.”I’m not sure what the gift was, but I’m guessing he’s proud of having made a former president and his wife hang their heads in shame for how America has treated black people.Oprah Winfrey, one of the stars of the film, was asked during an interview what she thought of the comparisons between Trayvon Martin and Emmett Till, a 14-year old black teenager from Chicago who in 1955 was dragged from the home of a relative he was visiting in Mississippi and brutally murdered for allegedly flirting with a white woman. The decision of Till’s mother to hold an open casket funeral for her son, exposing to the world a face so badly mutilated it was barely recognizable as human, is considered by many historians as a tipping point in the civil rights movement, and the episode still resonates in the black community today.In response to the question, Ms. Winfrey replied, “Let me just tell you, in my mind, same thing.”Any objective examination of the two incidents would lead to the conclusion, in my opinion, that such a comparison is ludicrous.Other influential elites, however, agree with her, and the comparison is taking hold. The Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture, which already possesses Till’s original casket – he was exhumed and reburied in 2005 – was, according to some media reports, interested in acquiring the hoodie Trayvon Martin wore on the night he was killed:“It became the symbolic way to talk the Trayvon Martin case. It’s rare that you get one artifact that really becomes the symbol,” Bunch said. “Because it’s such a symbol, it would allow you to talk about race in the age of Obama.”Curators, he mused, could “ask the bigger questions” prompted by the case.“Are we in a post-racial age?” Bunch asked, dreaming about how the hoodie might help shape perceptions. Then he answered the question: “This trial says, ‘No.’?”While the Smithsonian later said it was not currently seeking to acquire the hoodie, Mr. Bunch’s statement clearly places it as an artifact, on the same level as Till’s coffin, of the continuing struggle of black people in America.Finally, according to Philly.com, Winfrey “told Diane Sawyer…that the film could help white people understand why African Americans are so angry over the Martin case.”The impact of these events, and the constant drumbeat of the narrative, on Americans’ current attitudes regarding race has been staggering. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken in mid-July shows only 52 percent of white Americans and 38 percent of black Americans have a favorable view of race relations in America, down from 79 percent of whites and 63 percent of blacks in 2009, the first year of President Obama’s first term. Some observers have declared that race relations in America are the worst they’ve been since the civil rights era.Had you told me in 2008, as I watched President-elect Obama give his victory speech at Grant Park in Chicago, and as the Rev. Jesse Jackson looked on, weeping openly at the milestone he was witnessing, that even with President Obama’s reelection in 2012, race relations would be in worse shape in 2013 than at any time since the 1960s, I would have scoffed at your statement.A nation for which racism is “a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute” – the dictionary definition of “inherent” – would never have elected a black man as President of the United States not once, but twice. Frankly, a sitting president with Obama’s favorability ratings, unemployment figures, and economic indicators has never been re-elected to a second term – ever. To claim America is racist in its very core despite these facts offends the conscience like a clashing cymbal offends the ears.But here we are.So what is the state of race relations in America today – really? Given that human relationships are determined as much by emotion, perhaps more so, than empirical evidence, the question may be moot. Perception is reality, after all, and the liberal orthodoxy has done a masterful job of burying the real and substantive progress of black Americans since the civil rights era under an avalanche of stories which have black elites and everyday black Americans equating the second decade of the 21st century to the 1950s, when blacks rode in the back of the bus, faced the threat of lynching for the slightest offense, and were denied their fundamental rights as citizens, and where “niggers are gonna stay in their place“, to use the vile language of one of Emmett Till’s murderers. This is an extreme view of the current state of American race relations.By the same token, however, is it realistic of those on the other side of the racial divide to declare a “post-racial” era in which “the content of character” has conquered racism, and we should therefore not indulge any sentiments to the contrary, dismissing them as “playing the race card”?Please don’t misunderstand me; given the nature of politics, I know there are constituencies and power bases standing on a foundation of perpetual grievance, and race is just one factor around which such monuments to human ego are built. That said, however, are those of us who are declaring the “race wars” over as guilty of oversimplification as those who believe we are still the nation we were over six decades ago?The question of whether or not America is a racist nation is like the question of whether or not America is a Christian nation. If you are intellectually honest, the correct answer to both questions is “It depends.”Let’s do some math.The first African slaves arrived on the shores of what is now South Carolina in 1526. From that moment until 1865, when the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was enacted, blacks were in some form of servitude, primarily chattel slavery, a period of 339 years.From 1865 to 1965, institutionalized discrimination, built on a foundation of law, domestic terror, socially acceptable racism, and an education system which reinforced the notion of black inferiority, reigned throughout the South and significant segments of the North as well, a period of 100 years.As I mentioned in a recent article, the belief systems of most humans, according to those who are experts in such things, are essentially formed by the age of six. Anyone who was six years old or older in 1965 would have been deeply influenced by the prevailing racial attitudes of the time. There are about 60 million of those people living in the U.S. today.Racism and discrimination are not artifacts of ancient history, but existed in our lifetimes, and there were 439 years of slavery and second-class citizenship behind them. Let’s not forget that it took a civil war that killed or wounded over a million Americans, and the sometimes violent social upheaval of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, to bring about change.This history has had a profound and troubling impact on America, and it would be imprudent not to acknowledge it.Black men, who were emasculated for centuries, were then pushed further into irrelevance by a welfare system that essentially banned them from the home so women and children could receive monetary benefits from the government.This was a pivot point in the tortured history between blacks and whites in America, one which then-Assistant Secretary of Labor and sociologist Daniel Patrick Moynihan recognized, and for which he sounded the alarm in his report, “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.” Unfortunately, his report was rejected by a progressive establishment which was more interested in acting than in thinking through the implications of what they were doing. Today, with over 70 percent of black children born out of wedlock, the black family, which was the bedrock of the community in the worst of times, is an endangered species.Have we truly considered the impact this had on the psyche of the black man who, on the eve of gaining his civil rights, had his dignity as a man yanked out from under him yet again by the effective disavowal of his importance to the children he helped conceived, and the woman who gave birth to them?Does this history sound like an experience that wouldn’t leave scars?Do I believe that racism still exists? That’s easy – the answer is yes, not only because of our history, but also because of human nature, which is inherently sinful. I don’t need to know American history to believe that; I have the Word of God and 6,000 years of recorded human history as my guide.Do I believe racism has had an impact on the black community, even today? Yes, I do.The most telling illustration of this fact is to look at the achievements of black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean compared to the indigenous black population.As far back as the 1930s, black historian Carter G. Woodson noted the difference in achievement between West Indian blacks and their American brethren, and attributed it to their belief that they were the equal of any man, while American blacks had been told all their lives how inferior they were. The gap in education and entrepreneurial success between black immigrants and home-grown blacks is measurable and still pronounced today.Do I think America is an inherently racist nation? No, I do not. Were it so, no black person could succeed, and too many have succeeded and continue to succeed. There is a pervasive underclass of black Americans, however, that have a statistically significant impact on the metrics commonly cited for black unemployment, education, income, wealth, and crime, and they require our attention and assistance.Yet those who follow a prescribed formula for success – finish school and get a diploma, find and keep a job, marry and then have children, in that order, are four times less likely to be poor, and the trajectory is upward from there. Policy prescriptions from the top down will have less of an impact on people achieving these personal milestones than community action from the bottom up, and I personally place a particular burden on the church which, if it is true to the gospel of Jesus Christ and not to some worldly agenda, is the only unifying and edifying institution in the black community.Churches outside of the black community ought to partner with their brethren to help bring about healing and hope, for “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).Churches can and do teach economic literacy, promote responsible sexual behavior, establish private schools which demand excellence and focus attention on the unique needs of their students, feed the hungry and train people to take on good paying jobs that bring them self-sufficiency and dignity. The success stories of churches, civic organizations and charities, institutions that exist between the individual and the state, in breaking the cycles of pain in the black community should lead us to do more at the local level rather than less, and should relegate politics to being the court of last resort rather than the first.That’s not to say that some policy prescriptions wouldn’t be helpful, but the ones that come to mind primarily involve getting government to loosen its grip. Justice reform, for example, particularly for ex-offenders who’ve paid their debt so they can be successfully reintegrated into society, ought to be a cause for anyone who believes in liberty and, for those of us who proclaim our nation is founded on Christian principles, forgiveness and reconciliation. Education reform, particularly the expansion of education options for low-income families, is another area where blacks and whites can find common ground.The bottom line is that blacks and whites have different views of the American experiment, for all the reasons I cited above, but if people of both races could approach the topic with transparency, humility and grace, we could go further than we are now, either declaring America a nation of racists, or denying that racism exists or hasn’t had an impact.President Obama correctly stated that this dialogue is best held “in families and churches and workplaces” rather than in the political arena, where agendas polarize and corrupt, and this is also the level at which action can be most effective.What we need most are people in every community across America who truly want us to reconcile with one another, and who are willing to offer their time, talent and treasure to the achievement of that worthy goal.Ron Miller of Lynchburg, Virginia is an associate dean and assistant professor of government at Liberty University, a conservative commentator and author of the book, SELLOUT: Musings from Uncle Tom's Porch. The nine-year plus veteran of the U.S. Air Force and married father of three writes columns for several online sites and print publications, and his own website, RonOnTheRight.com. Join him on Facebook, Google+ and Twitter. Title and affiliation are provided for identification purposes only. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, Liberty University.See More

Mark my word, you will raise tax rates and you’ll feel good because you went out there and you got those rich people…You campaigned against rich people and you got enough envy whipped up in the country, and you’re going to stick it to those rich people. But guess what? You may not get any more revenue. You may not get any more economic growth. But you can say, “I stuck it to the rich people.” ~ Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)I don’t like emotional appeals. I think emotion deceives and distorts, and I believe the Bible on the folly of letting emotion rule one’s actions: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9).In the wake of the recent agreement to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff” – a hyperbolic and media-friendly term with little practical value – I am struck by the fact that one of the major components of the agreement, raising the income tax rates on individuals making $400,000 or more a year and couples making $450,000 or more a year, has, when subjected to impassioned scrutiny, more emotional than practical impact.Anyone who looks at the “tax the rich” scenario with the cold eye of evidentiary analysis would correctly conclude that it will have no impact on the national debt, our unfunded liabilities, or even the annual deficit for one year.The Congressional Budget Office projects a $620 billion increase in revenue over 10 years as a result of the increased tax rates. That averages out to $62 billion a year, and since the federal government spends $10,460,188,800 a day, this new “revenue” will be exhausted in less than six days, if not sooner given the administration’s desire for increased expenditures, or “investments,” their preferred term. I am certain the administration is aware of this fact.Incidentally, the use of the word “investments” to describe increased government spending is yet another attempt by the elites to elicit a specific emotional response from the people. After all, who would oppose “investments” since their intent is to bring a positive return to the “shareholders,” namely the American taxpayer?If this maneuver isn’t going to contribute to debt reduction, then what was its purpose?If it was because the government wants to spend more, then why not say that? I think you know the answer to that; such an admission would not have been politically prudent in an election year.Even if they were bold enough to admit that their intent is to spend more, the limited revenue generated by this tax rate increase isn’t nearly enough to cover the $10 trillion in new debt the Congressional Budget Office has projected as an outcome of the administration’s own ten-year budget submission. Even if they had gotten the tax rate increase they desired on individuals making $200,000 or more, or families making $250,000 or more, that would add only an additional $180 billion in revenue over the same ten year period. Once again, I am certain the administration is aware of this.The point I’m trying to make by walking through this analysis is that the administration and its advocates are not serious about deficit reduction. I also don’t think it matters to them that their “tax the rich” scheme is unlikely to make up for the massive spending increases they seek. This tax rate increase was a political victory for them in that they bagged the trophy they promised to their constituents – they “stuck it to the rich people.”It’s usually at this point that my liberal friends, clearly stung by the implication that their central tax policy is motivated by nothing more than covetousness and class envy, accuse me and my conservative allies of ignoring the theft and fraud perpetrated on the American people by the financial services industry in the economic meltdown of 2008.We’ll set aside for the moment the simplistic and inaccurate notion that our economic collapse was due solely to criminal actions, rather than deliberate federal policies, and business decisions carried out with the blessing and encouragement of politicians from both parties. We’ll also not delve into a discussion of how much our own greed played into us making bad personal financial decisions which left us vulnerable when the housing bubble burst.To the notion that the increased tax rates for upper income taxpayers are effectively a fair exchange after their “theft” of Americans’ wealth, I ask my liberal friends, “Must all upper income Americans pay the price for the alleged malfeasance of the few? Is that your definition of ‘fairness’?”Here is what I believe. The distribution of others’ income is a core principle of the American left, and taking more from those who have more is essential to the successful execution of their distributive policies.Note that I didn’t use the term “redistribution” or its derivatives because that is also a term fraught with emotional baggage. As I’ve stated in the past, redistribution presumes that income is arbitrarily disseminated in the first place rather than earned under mutually agreed upon contractual arrangements, and that some benevolent entity must intervene to reallocate income more equitably.I categorically reject the inference that most people who have done well financially didn’t make their income legally and ethically, as well as the idea that the state has the moral or legal authority to confiscate their earnings solely for the purpose of “fairness,” which is another emotionally-laden word with little effective policy significance. “Fairness” isn’t objective, nor is there a single standard or power that establishes a universally accepted definition of “fairness.”I can say with absolute confidence that life has never been fair, nor will it ever be. In fact, we have all had experiences where we were the beneficiaries of someone showing us favor over another, and I doubt we would surrender those experiences in the name of “fairness.” Jesus tells us that even God’s creation isn’t “fair,” since “He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matthew 5:45).Pursuing “fairness’ in economic policy is futile and frustrates the “winners” and the “losers,” the former because there will always be someone who has more, and they will always be discontented as a result, and the latter because they will accrue no benefit from their labors and therefore will lose the incentive to excel, which negatively impacts the proposed beneficiaries of this “fairness” doctrine – and around and around it goes. It’s human nature that has played itself out multiple times throughout history, and the pride of those who choose to ignore nature and history because they think they can do it better astounds me.It annoys me when the president describes his tax rate hikes as “asking the wealthy to pay a little more.” The state doesn’t “ask” anyone to do anything; the only tool at the state’s disposal to accomplish its objectives is coercion.Sadly, it’s not as if we weren’t warned about how our love of equality could lead to increased coercion by the state in order to achieve it. Alexis de Tocqueville noted in 1835 in his book, Democracy in America, that Americans’ passion for equality and fairness could have unintended consequences:But one also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom.To those who think the current trophy mounted on the state’s wall as a result of the “fiscal cliff” agreement is enough, I challenge you to consider Tocqueville’s warning. The state’s pursuit of economic “fairness” will result in an expanding definition of “haves” from whom more will be “asked” to effect “redistributive justice,” as then-Illinois state senator Barack Obama phrased it in 2001. The hunt is just beginning.Ron Miller of Lynchburg, Virginia is an associate dean and assistant professor of government at Liberty University, a conservative activist and commentator, and author of the book, SELLOUT: Musings from Uncle Tom's Porch. The nine-year plus veteran of the U.S. Air Force and married father of three writes columns for several online sites and print publications, and his own website, RonOnTheRight.com. Join him on Facebook, Google+ and Twitter. Title and affiliation are provided for identification purposes only. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, Liberty University.See More

As we approach the end of 2012, with a contentious electoral season behind us and a year of potential ahead of us, I want to try and address some strongly held notions in America’s black community that, if we are courageous enough to challenge them, could make 2013 a year of significant change not just for black Americans, but for all of us.The prevailing attitude in the black community in the wake of President Obama’s reelection could be stated as follows: “We delivered for you, so now it’s time for you to deliver for us.” This attitude, in my opinion, is predicated on an unrealistic assumption of how politics works in the real world.Frankly put, if politicians don’t have to work for your affections before the vote, they certainly aren’t obligated to reward you afterwards.One of the more destructive mindsets in the black community when it comes to political institutions is that they are either our “friends” or our “enemies.” A famous saying about the proper conduct of foreign policy is paraphrased as follows: “Nations don’t have friends; they have interests.” The same thing can be said for political parties.The Democrats who enslaved and oppressed black people for more than a century didn’t suddenly fall in love with black people, nor did the Republicans whose very reason for existence was the abolition of slavery and the granting of full citizenship to black Americans, suddenly start hating black people 50 years ago. The fact is that while we behave as if a political party loves or hates us, the parties make decisions on where to devote their time, attention and resources based on what helps them win elections.We are so beholden, however, to the notion that one party “likes” us and the other one “hates” us that we sell our souls to one and pillory the other, rendering ourselves politically irrelevant.That is why the Democrats, including the first black president, will bend over backwards to make significant policy concessions to every interest group under the sun except black people, because we tell him “We’ve got your back,” and he knows he just has to throw out a few radio ads reminding us of who loves us to get 96 percent of our vote.While we swoon over words and expressed feelings, the horrific statistics, reflecting the toll on the black community of broken families, poverty, lack of educational opportunity, crime and untimely death, do not change or get worse.Meanwhile, the Republicans are called heartless, even racist, for the mere suggestion that the same principles which allowed immigrants from all over the world to come here and succeed can work for us, too, and that current policies are an anchor on our political and economic independence. We reject them decisively at the polls, and so they conclude that courting us is a waste of time.That’s the way to master the art of politics; cause one party to take you for granted, and the other to ignore you. Black historian Dr. Carter G. Woodson, who argued forcefully for blacks to be politically independent, would declare us fools for such an emotionally driven and short-sighted approach to politics.Even those who claim their allegiance to one party is based on policy are selling their people short. They make statements like “Big government is us by another name,” or blame high black unemployment on the shrinking public sector, or the nation’s oldest civil rights organization, the NAACP, responds tepidly to the rise of Congressman Tim Scott to the U.S. Senate, making him the only black U.S. senator in the nation, because he stands for a “small government” agenda that’s “not within the African-American community’s best interest.”If our viability in America as a people depends on the expansion of government, then we are in worse shape than we realize.The government is broke, and broken.If you disbelieve that, look at the U.S. debt clock and focus on just two figures, the U.S. national debt near the top, and the U.S. unfunded liabilities near the bottom. The first figure is America’s “credit card” debt, and the second is the upcoming bill for services to be rendered. Those numbers alone are staggering, and we’ve not even factored in state and local public sector debt, which many of us may feel more immediately as essential public services are cut back or eliminated. Even police protection is no longer assured, and once great cities have become war zones as governments have essentially thrown up their hands in defeat.As even President Obama will admit, “Well, we are out of money now.”As for the government being broken, remember how the government’s poor response to Hurricane Katrina was supposedly due to racism? How does one explain their poor response to Hurricane Sandy? Has it occurred to anyone that the ponderous dinosaur from Rome on the Potomac can’t handle it?Has anyone considered the possibility that the unacceptably high poverty rate in the black community might have something to do with government’s inability to fix the problem, or that the problem may not be one that can be solved by government, or that government may have perpetuated the problem with their policies?Is it wise to pursue primarily one remedy for what ails us, effectively putting all our eggs in one increasingly fragile basket?We black conservatives take a lot of heat from liberals who claim we are too quick to discount the impact of America’s tortured racial past on the black community. I can only speak for myself, but I don’t dismiss what has happened to black Americans since we first reached the shores of this great nation in the 16th century. From the era of slavery (1526-1865) to the institutionalized discrimination of Jim Crow laws and the domestic terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan and thousands of lynchings (1876-1965), American society declared emphatically, and often in violent fashion, that black people were inferior to other human beings and undeserving of the inalienable rights afforded to others. Even the schools where blacks went to “better” themselves perpetuated the lie that blacks were not as capable as other people, as Dr. Woodson highlighted in his signature work, The Mis-education of the Negro.I’ve written often about how this constant, centuries-long drumbeat of inferiority and second-class citizenship affected native-born blacks, while their brethren from the Caribbean and Africa, who willingly immigrated to America and lacked such baggage, have been measurably more successful in academics and the professions, even as far back as the early 20th century.I would add to the history, however, the era of generational dependency (1965-present), in which that same sense of black inferiority has made us susceptible to the notion that our only route to success is through the benevolence of government. This is the same government which, throughout history, either enslaved us, or suppressed or ignored our rights under the law for generations, and which only in the late 20th century took steps to live up to its legal and moral responsibility to protect our rights under the law.Conservatives are known for their mistrust of government. I submit, however, that after a history of abuse or neglect, and the velveteen racism of dependency politics, which offer a meager existence at best and consign us to lesser homes, lesser schools and lessened expectations, black Americans shouldn’t trust government to have our best interests at heart, either.History can be a compass or an anchor, depending on whether we let it lead us forward or hold us in place. I would contend that we have done the latter to our ongoing detriment.Our fatal attraction to government, and politicians that advocate its continued expansion and intrusion into our lives, is the path of least resistance, and the temptation to follow it is strong. Yet, the same people who for generations told us we were inferior and could do nothing without them now tell us only they can help us – which is another way of saying we are inferior and can do nothing without them.Why do we willingly accept this? Are we so desirous of safety and security that we will surrender our dignity and freedom? As Benjamin Franklin famously said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”I continue to be heartened by the voices of my fellow black conservatives, who have become more outspoken and bold in recent years. Our willingness to challenge the conventional wisdom of what we can or cannot do, and our steadfastness in the face of withering and strident insults from white liberals and the black orthodoxy, tells me that we are breaking the cycle of accepting our fate as dictated by others, and seizing for ourselves the reins of our own lives.That is my hope and prayer for 2013, because I predict the limits of government will become painfully apparent in the months and years to come, and we will need a spirit of victory if we are to survive, and eventually thrive:Out of the night that covers me,Black as the pit from pole to pole,I thank whatever gods may beFor my unconquerable soul.In the fell clutch of circumstanceI have not winced nor cried aloud.Under the bludgeonings of chanceMy head is bloody, but unbowed.Beyond this place of wrath and tearsLooms but the Horror of the shade,And yet the menace of the yearsFinds and shall find me unafraid.It matters not how strait the gate,How charged with punishments the scroll.I am the master of my fate:I am the captain of my soul.~ “Invictus” by William Ernest HenleyI hope you have a blessed and transforming 2013!Ron Miller of Lynchburg, Virginia is an associate dean and assistant professor of government at Liberty University, a conservative activist and commentator, and author of the book, SELLOUT: Musings from Uncle Tom's Porch. The nine-year plus veteran of the U.S. Air Force and married father of three writes columns for several online sites and print publications, and his own website, RonOnTheRight.com. Join him on Facebook, Google+ and Twitter. Title and affiliation are provided for identification purposes only. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, Liberty University. See More

As a longtime observer of politics, I am just a little bemused by the hand-wringing and navel gazing taking place within Republican Party circles, simply because every party that loses an election immediately goes into panic mode, and they always propose some version of “moving to the center” and discarding the “extremists” at the fringe.The Democrats went through a similar period of introspection after 12 years out of the White House, and again following the 1994 Republican Revolution that captured the U.S. House of Representatives after 40 years of Democratic Party control. They pilloried the “extremists” and said they needed to move to the center, thinking it was the key to their long-term political viability. The party labels may change, but the song remains the same.I was discussing this cycle with a pastor friend of mine since many in the GOP have decided to turn on the social conservatives, the heart, soul, hands and feet of the party who are, for the most part, evangelical Christians.“Maybe the voters would love us more if we abandoned the principles of our most loyal supporters adopted some of the positions of our opponents,” they opine. Well, that may not be how they would present their argument, but that is in fact what they are suggesting.Strictly from a political perspective, this is ludicrous.If voters are given a choice between committed Democrats and Republicans trying to be more like Democrats, guess who they’re going to pick?The whole notion of an opposition party is to promote and defend an opposing worldview, and offer the electorate a choice. To those who think the GOP is going to see a surge of electoral support without the passion and principles of the social conservative movement, I say “Good luck with that.”Moderates generally don’t sacrifice their time, talents, and treasure the way social conservatives do – that’s why they’re called moderates – and, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, if you think the GOP is a defeated party with social conservatives in it, wait until you see what it looks like without them.The Democrats, after all, once thought they should discard their “extremists” if they were going to win, yet they currently hold the White House and the U.S. Senate with a platform that is more left of center than at any time in their history.It is precisely the devotion and commitment of evangelicals to the political process, however, that has my pastor friend apoplectic, and he threw down a proposal to me so radical that I can’t help but share it.In some respects, his proposal reminded me of John Galt, a key figure in Ayn Rand’s book, Atlas Shrugged, who grew tired of being used and demeaned by the state and the “takers” of society, and decided to lead a movement where he and producers like himself would go on strike, “stopping the motor of the world” and showing them the futility of a society without the creators, innovators and producers.Conscientious Christians on both sides of the political aisle have been used by the political process for decades now, and if they are honest with themselves, none of the goals they sought to achieve through these earthly institutions have come to pass in any meaningful way.Whether you declare yourself to be on the left and look to politics to care for the poor, the sick and the hungry, or you land on the right and expect politics to protect the unborn, affirm the family, and promote life, liberty and the fruits of one’s labor, if you are honest with yourself, you will admit that you’ve gotten very little return on your investment of time, skill, money and passion.So, my pastor friend suggested that it’s time for Christians to remove themselves from politics altogether – no voting, no running for office, no time, money or talent toward achieving political success. They will continue to obey the law, but they will completely disengage from politics.In other words, it’s time for Christians to “go Galt” on the political process.Have I got your attention?The more I thought about his proposal, the more I thought it warranted a deep and serious discussion of its merits and its faults. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the great German theologian and martyr to the Nazis, told his seminary students that every good sermon required, as his friend and mentor, Anglican bishop George Bell would say, “a shot of heresy.”Sometimes a dramatic dissent from conventional wisdom, a paradigm breaker, is what is needed to spur critical thinking and deeper reflection, and it might even sharpen one’s defense of the prevailing view, so it is in that spirit that I am examining my pastor friend’s proposal.Of course, this proposal is not new, although it might be more draconian in its suggested implementation. Two of the better known books embracing this idea are Why Government Can’t Save You: An Alternative to Political Activism, by famed pastor, teacher and author Dr. John MacArthur, and Blinded by Might: Why the Religious Right Can’t Save America, which was notable in that one of its co-authors, syndicated columnist and pundit Cal Thomas, was a faithful lieutenant in the social conservative movement as a vice president for the Moral Majority, the leading organization of the so-called “Religious Right” at its zenith in the 1980s.While I recommend you read them both to gain a full appreciation of their point of view, they generally challenge the reader to “count the cost” of extensive Christian involvement in politics, and I will attempt to summarize their arguments, and that of my pastor friend:1) Just another special interest group: Religion in general, and Christianity in particular, has historically held the role of America’s moral conscience, transcending the worldly quest for power, and operating independently of the political and cultural currents of the day. The founders believed that only “a religious and moral people” could successfully govern themselves under a constitutional republic, and so they envisioned the church as the guardian of virtue.Some would argue that the church’s deep involvement in the political process has reduced it to just another special interest group seeking to have its demands met through the mechanisms of government, and therefore stripped it of its transcendent nature, and the power it gave the church to inform the conscience of the nation.2) Millenials hate politicized faith: In the book ”Unchristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity … and Why It Matters,” authors David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons cite extensive data from The Barna Group, a market research firm specializing in religious beliefs and behavior, which indicate young Americans believe Christians are “primarily motivated by a political agenda and promote right-wing politics.” The authors do a credible job of addressing this perception and discussing the complexities and challenges it presents, pointing out that there is no easy or pat answer to the question of the means through which Christians should influence the culture.I would add that political involvement is not exclusive to Christians who self-identify as conservative, as organizations like Sojourners and its founder, Christian activist Jim Wallis, demonstrate, but the “Christian left” is somehow spared the ire of the culture, and while I have my opinions as to why that is the case, this isn’t the time or place to air them. Ultimately, the consequence of the perception that Christians are too wedded to right-wing politics is that young people feel disconnected from the church, and they miss the good news of Jesus Christ.3) Poor return on investment – Whether it’s aid to the poor, protection of life from conception to natural death, the defense of marriage, or any one of a number of noble goals the church seeks to achieve, a case could be made that turning to government as the primary means through which to accomplish them hasn’t worked.The so-called “War on Poverty” launched nearly half a century ago hasn’t appreciably changed the lives of millions for whom poverty is a legacy passed from generation to generation, despite tens of trillions of taxpayer dollars spent and an unprecedented expansion of government into a sphere of influence for which it is ill-designed. Even liberal observers have been forced to admit that many government poverty programs have perpetuated dependency rather than eliminated it, and led to the unintended consequence of crushing the human spirit under the weight of hopelessness and despair.The battle for the sanctity of human life at all stages of development has netted some victories, but abortion on demand is still the law of the land, and assisted suicide is legal in three states. Marriage and family, the bedrock of civilizations for centuries, are at risk of being redefined into non-existence, and nearly half of American children are born out of wedlock, putting them behind the starting line before the race is even run.The Bible describes the role of government as punishing the wrongdoer and rewarding those who do good, and the only way government can fulfill its role is through the use of force, whether it’s the law, police, the courts, or the armed forces. In short, government is designed to be a blunt instrument for keeping order and administering justice, and trying to use it to do what Christ called the church – His church – to do is using the wrong tool for the job. The results should make this readily apparent.4) Making disciples – or enemies? – Another unintended consequence of relying too much on government is that the prime directive for all Christians, the Great Commission, goes unfulfilled. Jesus uses our works not just to meet the physical needs of the hurting and helpless, but to minister to their souls as well, and give them the desire to know Him more.When we outsource our compassion to government, we have effectively surrendered any opportunity to make disciples for Christ. Moreover, using the force of law to achieve our ends is unbiblical, and it makes adversaries of the people we are supposed to be reaching. From the very beginning in the Garden of Eden, God has always allowed us free will, and it is contrary to His nature to compel anyone to love or obey Him.5) Voting for Pharaoh – My pastor friend likens our participation in the electoral process to “voting for Pharaoh.” Certainly, government has been indifferent at best and hostile at worst to the values of the church, yet we show them a level of deference that he equates to embracing our oppressors.6) Politics as the golden calf – Idolatry in ancient times took the form of graven images, and the old saying “putting someone up on a pedestal” describes how we often elevate some people as if they are greater than the rest of us. Watching the behavior of people at a political rally, however, really brought home for me the concept of idolatry, or counterfeit gods, to use pastor Timothy Keller’s term.I’ve seen more emotion and expressiveness at political rallies than I see in many churches, and the outpouring of our personal wealth, time and devotion to politicians and political causes is not only unhealthy for a nation founded on the precepts of human equality and the rule of the people over their government, it is essentially worship for someone or something other than the Creator of the Universe.7) The church divided – This is perhaps the most heart-rending outcome of politicized Christianity, at least for me. There should be no “left” or “right” in the church, but the reality is that Christians take opposing stands on political issues which result in such categorization, and I believe it grieves the heart of God.Too many Christians put their politics ahead of their faith, in deed if not in word, and the church, rather than standing as one and acting as God’s messenger to the world, is just as divided and in conflict as everyone else. The church is meant to be an influence on society, yet it often allows itself to be consumed by society, and elevates acceptance to a higher plane than righteousness.My pastor friend cites as his rallying cry Philippians 3:20 (“But our citizenship is in heaven”) and Malachi 3:7 (“Return to me and I will return to you”). He says it’s time for the church to stop using secular institutions to achieve Godly ends. Certainly, after examining the cost of politicized Christianity, he makes a compelling case for Christians to “go Galt.”Bible professor Wayne Grudem, however, in his book, Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture, rejects the notion of total disengagement from the political process, along with four other “mistaken” views on Christian involvement in politics, and instead defends the view of “significant Christian influence on government.” He states, “I wrote this book because I was convinced that God intended the Bible to give guidance to every area of life – including how governments should function!” Regarding his conclusions, he says “I see these positions as flowing out the Bible’s teachings rather than positions that I hold prior to, or independently of, those biblical teachings.”I’ve spoken with colleagues and other pastors on the topic, and I’m continuing to read Dr. Grudem’s book, which is very comprehensive and firmly grounded in Scripture. The next installment in this series will tackle his view of the Christian’s role in politics.In the meantime, let me ask you – should Christians “go Galt”? I welcome your thoughts.See More

Be honest; how many times in the past few months have you uttered the phrase, “I can’t wait until this election is over!”?I already confessed a few weeks ago that election fatigue had set in, and the commercials, regardless of which candidate is represented, were sending me diving for my remote control’s mute button – they still do! In less than a week, however, it will be over, although we here in Virginia get only a short break until we ramp up again for a gubernatorial race in 2013.Have you given any thought, however, to what you’re going to do the day after the election, and the days which follow that?After all, this election has revealed, at least for me, that we have our work cut out for us in the years ahead, regardless of who wins next week, and those of us who feel a calling to serve cannot ignore the tugging at our hearts to do something. I’ve had this disquieting feeling about the declining state of our nation for nearly ten months now, and now that the end of this particularly contentious election is upon us, I feel the need in its aftermath to pull back, rest, refuel and reengage at the time and place, and in the manner, of God’s choosing.As a cathartic exercise of sorts, I’d like to lay out my post-election thoughts and agenda for you, and see what you think.First and foremost, I will pray for peace in our land. Judging from the passions I see demonstrated online and on the campaign trail, I’m not expecting the victors to show a lot of grace. In fact, I expect, at best, taunting and gloating at the expense of the losers who, in my humble opinion, will be devastated out of proportion to the actual impact this election will have on their lives. That isn’t to belittle the significance of this election, or the gravity of the choices we make, but to point out that what we do in our own lives, our homes, and our communities in the days, weeks and years ahead will have a more direct and immediate impact on our lives than anything that happens in Washington, DC. I’ll expand on that thought later.History tells us that political campaigns can be ugly, but I believe the coarseness, divisiveness and rancor that characterized this campaign have penetrated deeply into the minds and hearts of the electorate, and recovering from this campaign season is going to be much more difficult than in the past. I have expressed concerns previously about a violent reaction to the outcome, but I’ve tempered my thinking somewhat and have chosen instead to have faith that this election, like so many others before, will pass by peacefully.Going forward, however, there are deep fissures in the American body politic which have been either ignored or deliberately encouraged for partisan political purposes. I challenged my readers a few weeks ago to tell me one value or custom that binds Americans together beyond our voluntary confinement within the borders of the nation we call the United States of America. To my mind, that is a major task for those of us who truly seek to bring the nation back together.So the day after the election, the first thing I’m going to do is what I try to do daily, and that is thank the Lord for another day of life. My great-grandfather and grandfather were prayer leaders at Mount Calvary Baptist Church, and aside from inheriting their loquaciousness in prayer (grin!), I also remember they always used to thank the Lord for waking them up that morning, because it meant He still had work for them to do for His Kingdom. So every day that I awaken and draw in a breath is a day where God still has use for me. As the old Rare Earth song goes, “I just want to celebrate another day of living.”The second thing I’m going to do is retain my perspective based on my Biblical worldview.The Bible says that God is sovereign, that nothing happens that isn’t part of His plan, and that all authority on earth comes from God in heaven. I know that humans struggle with that truth, because it means some of the most despotic leaders in human history gained power under the Lord’s reign, and how can that be when God is by His very nature capable of only good and not evil? Certainly, my conservative friends will point to President Obama’s disregard for the sanctity of life and the Biblical definition of marriage, and wonder how I could possibly say that God willed his victory in 2008, or his re-election should that be the case on November 6, 2012.My response would be to echo His words from Isaiah 55:8-9:For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.God is omniscient and sees all of time, and His plan spans time and space, while we are only given a glimpse of it. The Bible is full of illustrations where God uses ordinary people and events to lay the groundwork for His extraordinary plan, and since all people are sinners and have fallen short of His glory, the likelihood that those he places in authority are going to be flawed and sometimes disobedient is pretty high. Think of the pagan leaders that God used to accomplish His purposes – the Pharaohs of Egypt in the lives of Joseph and Moses, Nebuchadnezzar with Daniel, and Pontius Pilate with Jesus Christ Himself. Look at flawed leaders like Saul, anointed by God but overcome by his own agenda, whose disobedience created a path for King David, “a man after God’s own heart” and the earthly ancestor of Jesus Christ. Consider the Herodian dynasty, ostensibly Jewish but consumed and corrupted by power, which played its appointed role in the crucifixion of Christ, setting the stage for his resurrection and the fulfillment of God’s ultimate plan.Moreover, God is not above using flawed leaders and governments as a form of correction. How many times in the Bible did the Lord allow His chosen people, the Jews, to be persecuted, captured or exiled because they had strayed from His commands and denied His authority? Have we considered that our nation, as great as we perceive it to be, might be due for God’s discipline, whatever form that may take?If I wring my hands in despair, or raise them in exultation, over the outcome of an election, in either reaction I’m effectively demonstrating that I didn’t trust God to have the outcome in His hands. God is bigger and more powerful than Willard Mitt Romney and Barack Hussein Obama put together, and they will not conquer Him nor thwart His plan, so I am not threatened by either’s ascension, nor devastated by either’s defeat.This excellent article by Erick Erickson echoes my sentiments on the aftermath of the election. Like its author, I must reiterate that taking a Biblical worldview on this election doesn’t mean I don’t have a preference or that I’m indifferent to the outcome. It simply means I have faith in God’s plan and, regardless of who wins, there will still be much work left to do, and that brings me to the third thing I’m going to do.I’m going on a hiatus from some of my normal extracurricular activities to delve into the books on my reading table, and spend time in reflection, refreshment and reengagement. This campaign has exposed some disturbing trends in our nation, and I want to prepare myself to confront them in knowledge and truth.I want to finish Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family, and Freedom Before It’s Too Late by authors James Robison and Jay W. Richards, a devout evangelical Christian and devout Catholic Christian respectively. Any Christian who is active in the public square will benefit from the prescriptions in this book, and their irrefutable foundation in Biblical truth as presented in the Scriptures. The authors state, “In general, a good public policy will apply a true principle in the right way,” and they go on to defend the right way as determined by “the laws of nature and nature’s God,” and how the founders integrated it into their design for the American government. They write:The Founders saw the paradox that many earlier political experiments had failed to appreciate: Sin is the main reason we need government and also the main reason to limit government…Samuel Adams said, “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” Without decent citizens and politicians, the Constitution is just ink and parchment. It can’t secure our liberties if politicians and judges ignore it. The rule of law depends on us, too. Adams refers not merely to politicians, but to a people.I have spoken often of how the political debate in America has centered on the balance between liberty and the law, but has omitted virtue as a critical component in our national architecture. The founders knew and stated often that the American experiment would fail without religion and morality to teach and reinforce virtue among the people. Their intent was for us to govern ourselves so that the limits they placed on the state would hold, and in order to govern ourselves, the law must not just be written on stone and parchment, but on the hearts of men.We have allowed the mediating, voluntary and non-governmental associations of family, church and community, collectively known as civil society, to decay. It is civil society that tills the soil in which virtue can take root and blossom, and which makes self-governance possible. The diminution of civil society created a vacuum into which the state has imposed its will and, once the state seizes control, it is loath to relinquish it.I believe that in order to restore virtue and bring America back into equilibrium, we must revive civil society, and we must protect it from the encroachment of the state with the same conviction we exhibit in defending our individual liberty. Speaker, author and social critic Dr. Os Guinness’ new book, A Free People’s Suicide: Sustainable Freedom and the American Future, speaks directly to our role in restoring “sustainable freedom” through virtue, and he writes, “In the end, the ultimate threat to the American republic will be Americans. The problem is not wolves at the door but termites in the floor.”The prevalence of religion and morality in America, and the ease with which Americans came together in voluntary associations to meet needs and solve problems in their communities, received prominent mention from French writer and aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville in his seminal work, Democracy in America, described by editors Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop as “at once the best book ever written on democracy and the best book ever written on America.” I’ve often used it as a reference, as one would use a dictionary or an encyclopedia, and I’ve read numerous reviews and analyses of it, but I’ve committed myself to reading it in its entirety so I can see American exceptionalism through the eyes of a stranger who witnessed the nation in its early days, when the experiment was just underway. It’s not dissimilar to today’s churches looking to the Book of Acts to discover the roots of the early church after Christ’s ascension, and to find, learn and apply valuable and timeless lessons lost over the centuries. The edition of Tocqueville’s book I’ve chosen is an imposing tome in heft and thickness, but it is regarded as “the finest and most definitive edition available” and “the best edition of the best book on America,” so I’m girding myself for the read. Just as I wish to reinforce my understanding of American exceptionalism, I want to emphasize to others the true and invariable nature of the state, and the best book on that topic, in my opinion, is Frederic Bastiat’s The Law:But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense. Bastiat understood the proper role of the law, which is to respect and secure our persons, our liberty and our property. It is consistent with my oft-stated position that government has no other means of acting on its precepts except for force, and so it must necessarily be limited to those duties which apply force in the interests of preserving, rather than usurping, life, liberty and private property. If we properly think of government as an agent of force, described in Romans 13:4 as “an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer,” it should change our willingness to use it as a tool against law-abiding citizens to achieve social ends.The best description of the nature of government, however, is found in 1 Samuel 8:10-18, where the prophet Samuel tells the people of Israel what the Lord has to say about their demand for an earthly king to rule over them:So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”On a related note, I’ve been vocal over the past few months about how the state and the culture are colluding to suppress freedom of conscience in America, to include religious liberty. It is a subtle but sustained assault on the right of individual Americans to think, speak out and act as their consciences command. The state uses the threat of force, the only tool at its disposal, to compel individuals and organizations to violate their most deeply held convictions, while the culture uses ridicule, vitriol and other forms of verbal bullying and intimidation, to shame those who don’t agree with them into silence or submission to their will. Frankly, this is inconsistent with the values and the laws of the nation that codified freedom of conscience in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, so I have no qualms whatsoever about calling such actions un-American.In his book, My Bondage and My Freedom, the great Frederick Douglass described the power of being free in one’s mind. Once he learned to read and write, and began to think for himself, while his body may have been in chains until he authored his escape from slavery, his mind was freed from the shackles of imposed conformity and ignorance, and it was at that point that his desire for freedom overcame his acceptance of his lot as a slave. At that point, he would either live free or die.That is the commitment I want to make in my pursuit of right over might in America, so I’m reading a biography which came highly recommended to me by several friends, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, by Eric Metaxas. This great man of God had left Germany on the cusp of war, and could have lived a safe and comfortable life in the United States as a theologian, teacher and writer. Instead, he returned to Germany to stand as the voice of the Confessing Church, not only against the state but also against the false prophets of the German Christian Church, whose leaders were coopted by the state and the culture, violating the admonition of Peter and the apostles in Acts 5:29, ”We must obey God rather than men.” He surrendered all comfort and, eventually, his life, for the cause of liberty in Christ. Much like another great man, William Wilberforce, the subject of another Eric Metaxas biography, Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery, Bonhoeffer counted the cost and still chose to be a disciple of Christ. That is the kind of commitment I want to demonstrate in my walk with Christ, and in defense of the liberty He has granted us here in America, so I plan to learn more about these great men and how they lived.I believe that free enterprise is not only the most efficient and effective means of production of all human economic systems, but also the most moral. Free enterprise has done the most to eradicate poverty around the world, and has brought self-sufficiency and a higher quality of life to millions more. We conservatives are losing the battle when it comes to defending the morality of free enterprise, however, and we need to step it up. Awaiting my perusal are The Road to Freedom: How To Win The Fight For Free Enterprise by Arthur C. Brooks, Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy by the Rev. Robert Sirico, and Freedom Manifesto: Why Free Markets Are Moral and Big Government Isn’t, by Stephen Forbes and Elizabeth Ames. Books I’ve already read on this topic that I also recommend are The Battle: How the Fight between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America’s Future by Arthur C. Brooks, Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem by Jay W. Richards, and The Virtues of Capitalism: A Moral Case for Free Markets by Scott Rae and Austin Hill.As a Christian, I am often told that my firm and passionate defense of my faith is inconsistent with who Jesus was, and that He would be loving and tolerant toward all people and all things. Jesus is indeed love personified, but he is also righteous and expects our absolute obedience. In Luke 6:46, he says in exasperation, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” He states without equivocation in John 14:15, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” The meek and mild Jesus who stands by and smiles while people sin isn’t the Jesus of the Gospel, and theologian, writer and teacher John MacArthur sets the record straight in his book, The Jesus You Can’t Ignore: What You Must Learn from the Bold Confrontations of Christ.” He writes, “We need to pay more careful attention to how Jesus dealt with false teachers, what He thought of religious error, how He defended the truth, whom He commended and whom He condemned – and how little He actually fit the gentle stereotype that is so often imposed on Him today.” I need to be reminded that being gentle, civil and respectful toward my fellow man doesn’t require me to give in to every belief that makes someone else feel good, but doesn’t comply with the Word of God.My family and I have endured a lot in the six years I’ve been in the public square. We’ve suffered the loss of jobs and financial security and were forced to move so that I could work again. Those struggles, however, pale before the experience of Ann Voskamp, the author of One Thousand Gifts: A Dare to Live Fully Right Where you Are, who, as a child, watched in horror as her little sister was crushed to death after accidentally running in front of an oncoming delivery truck. Her journey from that place of horror to a place of gratitude and grace is exquisitely documented – her writing is absolutely beautiful. I look forward to finishing her book, because it’s too easy in hard times to lose sight of the gifts God has given us, and if she can give thanks after such a tragedy and the damage it did to her and her family, she has a lesson to teach all of us. Whatever the future holds for us personally or for our nation, I intend to be a thankful warrior.Finally, I’m going to spend some time in my Bible, refreshing myself with the Word and reacquainting myself with Jesus Christ. The process I’ve described above is akin to preparing for battle, and Ephesians 6:13 says, “Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.” I’ll see you on the battlefield.Ron Miller of Lynchburg, Virginia is an associate dean and assistant professor of government at Liberty University, a conservative activist and commentator, and author of the book, SELLOUT: Musings from Uncle Tom's Porch. The nine-year plus veteran of the U.S. Air Force and married father of three writes columns for several online sites and print publications, and his own website, RonOnTheRight.com. Join him on Facebook, Google+ and Twitter. Title and affiliation are provided for identification purposes only. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, Liberty University.See More

I’ve been a user of social media since before the term was even coined. I was using GEnie and CompuServe in the late 1980s, and was a charter member of AOL when it was first released on the PC under a long-gone desktop operating system and application suite called GeoWorks. As a result, I’ve had the opportunity to witness and experience first-hand the impact of Internet-driven community building on the culture as a whole. The effect has been largely positive in terms of connecting like-minded people together on a scale and scope never before imagined.In my early forays on Facebook, I remember connecting with conservative black men and women online, and the initial reaction from each of them was always the same; “I didn’t know there was anyone else out there like me.” The reaction on Twitter, where I was active at a time when people looked at you quizzically when you told them you were tweeting, was similar. We started to forge bonds and establish relationships, and we actively sought out others to join us. Barack Obama’s election to the presidency in 2008 seemed to energize black conservatives, something which still mystifies me a bit.Perhaps the thinking was that his election signaled an end to racial politics in America, and black people could finally be the diverse and unique individuals they’ve always been, but couldn’t show publicly in the past because there was only one approved socio-political narrative allowed in the black community. That sounds tenuous to me, but I don’t have another explanation.Whatever the case, black conservatives became more visible and vocal than at any time in generations. They started blogging, posting, tweeting and, in every way possible, expressing their social and political views, and their disagreements with President Obama, doing so with great conviction and without fear of reprisal.This boldness manifested itself in the electoral sphere as well. More blacks ran for the U.S. Congress as Republicans in 2010, for example, than at any time since Reconstruction, and two of them, Allen West of Florida and Tim Scott of South Carolina, won, with West becoming the first black Republican in Congress from Florida since 1876, and Scott the first from South Carolina since 1901. They were the first black Republicans in Congress since J.C. Watts stepped down in 2003 after four terms as a congressman from Oklahoma, and it was the first time since 1997 that two black Republicans served together in Congress, Watts and Gary Franks from Connecticut preceding them.Businessman and media personality Herman Cain ran for the office of president early in the 2012 campaign season, and he was a viable contender and a rallying point for black conservatives before allegations, to date unsubstantiated, of prior sexual harassment ended his campaign. New GOP stars like Mia Love and Artur Davis joined West, Scott, Cain, and Condoleeza Rice as the face of black conservatism in American politics, and long-time black conservative thinkers, writers, politicos and advocates like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, Ken Blackwell, Michael Steele and Star Parker, to name a few, saw their profiles rise anew in today’s conservative blogosphere and social media space.Social media has had another, more negative impact, however, and that is how it has emboldened bullies, demagogues and agitators, tucked safely behind their keyboards and monitor screens, or their smartphones, to lash out at anyone with whom they disagree.Black conservatives pose a particular threat to the orthodoxy of black reliance on white liberals and their coercive utopian schemes, enabled by government fiat. Therefore, some of the vilest and most bigoted attacks are reserved for any black person who dares to think differently than the assimilated black community and their white liberal “friends.” It is one of the few times when white people can spew racially-charged statements at black people and not get in trouble for it, and they seem almost giddy at the prospect of freely expressing their contempt for black people that don’t follow their lead.Black conservative women, in my opinion, get the worst of it, because this latent racism is blended with misogyny to create an angry brew of vitriol unlike any our parents would have tolerated in a day when the culture was more respectful and less coarse. I won’t repeat the slurs hurled at these women, but whether it’s a candidate for the U.S. Congress like Mia Love of Utah, a former Secretary of State like Condoleeza Rice, or a beautiful actress like Stacey Dash, their achievements in life, which in my parents’ day would have made them role models, are dashed against the rocks of hatred because their values, observations and experiences led them to a different conclusion than the masses.For the most part, we knew the job was dangerous when we took it. Part of having the courage of one’s convictions includes being willing to suffer in defense of them, and so most of us take the slings and arrows with grace and humor, and some of us bite back! But a recent article by Angela West, the wife of the aforementioned Rep. Allen West of Florida, mentioned something that I hadn’t thought of before, and I wanted to extract that thought from her remarks and bring some attention to it. In repudiating the attacks against her husband, she stated:This vitriol, the total abandonment of objectivity by the press, the anger and so forth have as their origins a feeling of ownership. The idea that a person of color — in particular a Black American should not tow the Democratic line is totally abhorrent to many liberals. For this aberration, they will suspend all rules of decency, all morality, throw away any journalistic professionalism in order to destroy the offender.The word in Ms. West’s statement that caught my attention is “ownership.” Implicit in the attacks against black conservatives is the notion that the self-anointed black leadership, their followers, and the white liberals who enable them, have exclusive possession of the truth and are entitled to shun anyone, by any means necessary, who questions them.The most common insult hurled at black conservatives by the black orthodoxy and their white enablers is that they aren’t really “black,” suggesting that, like gods walking the earth, they created black people and are therefore the sole authority on who is authentically black.It amazes me that black people as a whole are not insulted by the notion that we all must conform to a prescribed way of behavior and thinking, or else be ostracized. Didn’t we fight for generations to be recognized as Americans and human beings, equal under the law and in the sight of God, because we were told to conform to society’s definition of blackness or suffer the consequences, even unto death? Have we forgotten what often happened to black people who were perceived as “uppity” because they dared to question the status forced upon them? Why, knowing that history, would we then demand the same fealty within our own community?Black conservatives are not being lynched, but that hasn’t stopped a lot of liberals from wishing a violent death upon them. None of us fear the threats of violence or death from the keyboard commandos and the so-called “progressives,” but it’s instructive to know that they are so offended by our rejection of their ownership privileges that they wish we were dead.Ms. West said one of the slurs used against her husband is “ingrate,” meaning he’s ungrateful for what black and white liberals, using the power of government, have done for him. Not only does this imply that he and other black conservatives are in debt to liberals and the federal government whose growth they espouse, it suggests that they’ve done something for us that is worthy of gratitude.Let’s get one thing straight; while I am mindful of the many great men and women throughout history who sacrificed everything, in many cases their lives, so I could enjoy the liberties I have today, do their individual heroics require me to be indebted to the federal government simply because it belatedly, and under duress, chose to honor its commitment to provide me, as a citizen, equal protection under the law? Do I owe them my unquestioning allegiance for doing what they should have been doing all along? Let me answer that – emphatically, unequivocally NO:Blacks who believe they owe their allegiance to the federal government because of its intervention on their behalf against slavery and discrimination are missing this point. Government’s intervention when justice is denied is a constitutional duty, not a gift that was given to us. My wife doesn’t reward me for household chores—they are my obligation for living in a shared household. Neither do I reward government for doing its job, nor should you. ~ SELLOUT: Musings from Uncle Tom’s PorchThis is the attitude of people who believe our rights come from government, not God. If the federal government was the final arbiter of our rights, then it would have had the moral authority to keep black people under subjugation. It is the law which is written on the hearts of men by their Creator, and codified in our founding documents, that stirred the conscience of a nation and took us through the fires of war, domestic terror and civil unrest to get us to the point where the government finally acknowledged its subordination to our God-given rights as men and women. My gratitude is to the God who created me, not to government or those who seek to have me bow down to it.Moreover, when I see the black community still suffering after half a century of government intervention and tens of trillions of dollars spent, it only adds to my incredulity over what exactly they’ve done for which I’m supposed to be obsequious with gratitude. We were warned at the dawn of this massive social experiment on the black community that the dissolution of the black family would lead to our destruction, yet government supposed itself to be superior to the first and most effective unit of governance on the planet – a married mother and father providing shelter, safety and stability to the children they conceive. Every crisis we’ve identified in the black community can be traced to the breakdown of the family, irrespective of environmental factors, and this is an outcome to which government has been a contributor. What precisely warrants my gratitude?As far back as 1865, wise and prescient black leaders have contended with the good intentions and flawed policies of well-meaning people. Frederick Douglass was annoyed with the hand-wringing of white people who wondered “What shall we do with the Negro?” They saw them then and, in my opinion, still do to this day, as “the white man’s burden,” to use the old British phrase, in need of constant assistance to even survive, much less thrive as the white man does:I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot- box, let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone,–your interference is doing him a positive injury.All we ever asked, once we were assured of equal protection under the law, was to be left alone to live our lives like every other free man and woman in America. It seems, however, that liberals can’t help themselves and continue to “play the mischief with us.” Black conservatives don’t want government’s help to become equal – we simply want their help to be free:With all [our] blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens–a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural Address, 1801In the final analysis, the heated criticisms of black conservatives amount to no more than clanging cymbals, because we owe our critics nothing, and they do not own us despite their repeated attempts to bully and intimidate us into surrendering our freedom of conscience, and adopting the hive mind of the black orthodoxy. The greatest fear of the slave-owners was that their slaves would learn to read, because if they were able to learn, they were no longer useful because they would become discontented with their lot as slaves. Frederick Douglass recalled how one of his masters, Hugh Auld, scolded his wife for teaching Douglass how to read so he could at least read the Bible:Master Hugh was astounded beyond measure and, probably for the first time, proceeded to unfold to his wife the true philosophy of the slave system, and the peculiar rules necessary in the nature of the case to be observed in the management of human chattels. Of course he forbade her to give me any further instruction, telling her in the first place that to do so was unlawful, as it was also unsafe; “for,” said he, “if you give a nigger an inch he will take an ell. Learning will spoil the best nigger in the world. If he learns to read the Bible it will forever unfit him to be a slave. He should know nothing but the will of his master, and learn to obey it. As to himself, learning will do him no good, but a great deal of harm, making him disconsolate and unhappy. If you teach him how to read, he’ll want to know how to write, and this accomplished, he’ll be running away with himself.”Douglass, in an 1861 speech, declared, “Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power.”Black people were once the victims of bullying and intimidation to suppress our freedom of conscience and, based on our experiences alone, we should never be the instigators of such vitriolic attacks on another’s freedom to think, believe and act on those beliefs. Freedom of conscience is the wellspring from which all other freedoms flow, and while we may be physically chained by iron shackles, or legally bound by unjust laws, if our minds are free, we are never fully enslaved.Ron Miller of Lynchburg, Virginia is an associate dean and assistant professor of government at Liberty University, a conservative activist and commentator, and author of the book, SELLOUT: Musings from Uncle Tom's Porch. The nine-year plus veteran of the U.S. Air Force and married father of three writes columns for several online sites and print publications, and his own website, RonOnTheRight.com. Join him on Facebook, Google+ and Twitter. Title and affiliation are provided for identification purposes only. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to Liberty University. See More